Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+ |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1158656.1726500658@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+ (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > On 2024-Sep-16, Jim Jones wrote: >> * The value of "Current User" does not match the function current_user() >> --- as one might expcect. It is a little confusing, as there is no >> mention of "Current User" in the docs. In case this is the intended >> behaviour, could you please add it to the docs? > It is intended. As Peter said[1], what we wanted was to display > client-side info, so PQuser() is the right thing to do. Now maybe > "Current User" is not the perfect column header, but at least the > definition seems consistent with the desired end result. Seems like "Session User" would be closer to being accurate, since PQuser()'s result does not change when you do SET ROLE etc. > Now, I think > the current docs saying to look at session_user() are wrong, they should > point to the libpq docs for the function instead; something like "The > name of the current user, as returned by PQuser()" and so on. Sure, but this does not excuse choosing a misleading column name when there are better choices readily available. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: